"Did the German society evolve when the Nazis took over (or were elected)? Historical events happen and there may be no way to determine from yesterday what happens tomorrow."

Thank you- a specific example. I was listening to a history podcast on Hitlet. Hitler was very much a product of his times. The background was the German loss in WW1 and the economy in shambles.

According to evolutionary ideas, as I see them, complex things spring from more simpler things, and there is cause/effect. Does anyone think Hitler had unique ideas? Or did he apply thoughts from others in new ways, under circumstances that gave him a foothold?

Also, I wonder what happens if Hitler would have triumphed- what the world would look like today. The USA has a very black history too, in the case of how we treated native American Indians (but we have since changed). But now we have grown into a beacon of light for other countries in many ways (although the present Bush administration has lowered the view of America globally).

To me the term evolve indicates time development with direction or purpose. Did the German society evolve when the Nazis took over (or were elected)? Historical events happen and there may be no way to determine from yesterday what happens tomorrow.

We are all embedded in spacetime and so there is an unavoidable time development, otherwise nothing would happen. Therefore, all in creation partakes of this time-motion. I am reluctant to call anything in spacetime as evolving since it would suggest or imply that evolution has something to say about it, which it does not. Of course, we can exercise our free wills and make things happen but I would not call that evolving.

Wake up and read a bit outside of your home turf. You're quacking like ducks!

'Meme,' o.k. let's rewrite it. ME-ME. Not YOU-YOU! Do you want to use that 'selfish gene' centric product of R. Dawkins in your vocabularies? If so, it's all about survival (reproductive fitness, to be more precise), nothing more. Get with the program!

Defend it and ?turn it into' your own meaning, you'll be doing a disservice as great as those who would pull the poison out of evolution by claiming it can be a 'completely theistic variety.' Are they serious? They don't own the discourse, but want to change people's vocabularies so that 'evolution' is GUIDED - who or what is doing that 'guidance' and why hasn't caught on in the mainstream of evolutionary biologists. Why are there guidance-ologists in biology?

Society doesn't 'evolve,' Bernie. Who told you (i.e. who that KNOWS, not who that guesses) that it does? Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton...exactly who? Please do tell! I am a sociologist and I am telling you that yes, of course, society 'changes-over-time,' but that no, it doesn't 'evolve.' A significant difference there, even if it's ?mere word-play' to you. It is not being 'afraid' of a word, but exercising discernment of where a particular word fits and where it doesn't to best express the thought one wants to express.

'Meme' is condescending conceptology (R.D. needed 'a word to rhyme with gene'!!!) - any who are tricked into playing his game should step back, examine their reasons and if necessary open a book or 500 in the fields where R.D.'s theory INTRUDES, i.e. in the human-social sciences. We don't want him there, yet this attitude of 'it might be o.k. to refer to 'non-scientific' things like ideas' is disgusting. There are better ways to speak about the ?transfer of ideas' than to lean on Blackmore, Dawkins, Dennett, M. Harris (cultural materialism), Sanderson, et al. I'm surprised you haven't found the resources yet to enable you to do this. Perhaps ASA could put something about Me-Me's on its education section (Craig Rusbult)?

Yes, Mike Gene, that is exactly the point - a "whole new field of pseudo-science has been inspired by R.D.," though I wouldn't dignify Me-Me-tics as a 'field' - that sounds far too rigorous and disciplined! :0)

Burgy said:
" The word "meme" seems to have value as descriptive of
something real. The fact that Dawkins invented it does not make it of
no value."

I agree Burgy. "Meme" may be controversial, but the fact that
society learns and evolves seems to be agreed by all. Some are afraid of the
word because Dawkins says that memes are responsible for religion and inventing
God... going too far.

I am puzzled. The word "meme" seems to have value as descriptive of
something real. The fact that Dawkins invented it does not make it of
no value.

Or amybe the argument is that "meme" does not refer to something
real.
Of course it is not real in the sense of a physical thing. But it
seems (to me) to be real in the sense of a concept/influence or
whatever. As such, it is a useful term; I'm not sure what to use in
its place to refer to what dawkins is writing about..

Burgy

On 7/30/08, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> Hi PvM,
>
>
>
> "The confusion that science is atheism is unfortunate but not
surprising
> given the state of education and religious indoctrination in this
country."
>
>
>
> Indeed. And what also adds to the confusion is the manner in which vocal,
> atheistic scientists preach about science leading to atheism. Ken Miller
> nicely explained this in his first book, Finding Darwin's God.
>
>
>
> "However, we should not oversimplify the issue as science is atheism,
and
> certainly not by pointing at an atheist who also happens to be a
scientist.
> Of course, for some, the idea that science is atheism is comforting."
>
>
>
> I'm not oversimplifying any issue when I note that Myers publicity
stunt has
> worked to entrench the confusion. Thanks to Myers, thousands of Catholics
> now know one thing - the man who deceptively obtained a Eucharist wafer in
> order to publicly desecrate it is a scientist who hosts the #1
"science
> blog." Are you under the impression that Myers stunt has helped
people to
> see the error in the science=atheism equation?
>
>
>
> - Mike
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

--
Burgy

www.burgy.50megs.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.